Starry Night

Sure after watching it, you'll catch yourself wondering: how did THE WAVES bring (Vincent) from Europe to Hollywood?!, how did the girl love him that easily?!, how on earth he could be that genius as a thief to steal all of his paintings?!!, how come he was that stupid to go to the auction and claim all of that millions?!!, and how his sane girlfriend didn't stop him?!, and what is it with all of that back-projections to make us believe that (Vincent) and his two friends are in Paris?!!, you can say that again about those shots, from 2 cameras, which the news bulletin of the American TV aired for (Vincent) in jail; it was part of the movie, not the news! Ok, don't tire yourself with those questions, since the movie looked like a project of cinema school student with all the faults, videography, and that zero budget; and that's an enough answer!

But, fairly, the story was beautiful. Also the cover version of (Starry Night) at the opening credits was so good and tender like the performance of all the cast. (David Abbott) was fine as the sensitive gentle (Vincent), with the crazy look lasting in his eyes. (Lisa Waltz) was wonderful, despite how her part gave her nothing to do except loving the man and believing in him! (Lou Wagner) was as childish as the movie itself. Actually all the cast was pretty amazing, believing the true fantasy of the situation with a smile on their faces as they're telling a story for a kid, and that's the real purpose of this very tiny movie anyway.

It's about honoring, even in an unassuming way, the memory of (Vincent Van Gogh), and teaching us some sweet messages too; for instance, how to believe in miracles and not to be that logical all the time; like the detective who loses because of this very reason, love your friend; (Vincent) - here - cut off his earlobe as a regret for insulting his friend (Paul Gauguin)!, have faith in your dreams, high art is not for the rich people only who must ensure sponsorship for the young unknown artistes, and the good message about the late evaluation of the artist, and how that mustn't delay the artist's resolution or make him doubt his talent; to shoot himself like (Vincent).

It's a childish movie; with the worst and the best meanings of the word. So it's naive, some kind of poor, but nice, and well-meaning for any child around, including the one inside every one of us.

I am an art history major, and I honestly don't know how this movie won awards. It was cute, but rather poorly done and incredibly hokey. Abbot Alexander looks dead on van Gogh, but thats about where the excellence of this movie ends. If you are looking just for a happy movie, this is good, just remember it is highly inaccurate and tremendously fantastical. If you want a really good van Gogh movie, try Lust For Life

This was the most amateurish movie I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.

While the intentions of the director/writer Paul Davids may have been genuine and while it is admirable to make a movie devoid of lowest common denominator pleasing sex and physical violence, the quality of the script, direction, acting, and sets is abysmal.

Everything about the movie is obvious and manipulative, starting with Don McLean's `Starry Night' over the opening credits and throughout the film. There is no subtlety - Davids hits the audience over the head with a sledgehammer, to make sure they get the point, at every turn.

Vincent, after being dead for a century, is suddenly plopped onto the streets of Pasadena and never seems shocked or intrigued by late 20th century technology or gender roles. He somehow manages to navigate about what should be an alien world without trouble. His Dutch accent sounds like it belongs in Dublin and his modern paintings are clearly the work of an uninspired painter using Van Gogh's style, but not talent. His painting of a yellow hat over a self-portrait, would have been examined by experts, who could have determined by brush strokes and other clues, that it was the original artist who added it.

None of the sets looked convincing. The interior shots of the houses from which the paintings were stolen did not look like anyone actually lived there and the bland way the supposedly priceless Van Goghs were on display and the lack of expected security to prevent theft were ludicrous.

The script was trite and the acting was execrable, most notably Sally Kirkland, playing a stereotype, not a person. The lawyer was also a singularly annoying character.

I agree with TedA-2's comments about the cheesy travelogue scenes in France, including the crypt (which looked as ancient as someone's basement).

`Starry Night' had none of the charm of 1979's `Time After Time', in which Malcolm McDowell plays H.G. Wells who time travels into his future/our present. That movie had everything this one lacked: accomplished actors (McDowell and David Warner, playing Jack the Ripper, also a time traveler), tender love story (with Mary Steenburgen, the quirky love interest), and characters you believe in and care about. Rent that and leave this waste of film of the shelf.

Let me assure you, this movie is not well-made, well-written, or well-acted. Van Gogh purists should stick to "Lust for Life" if they want to see a quality Vincent Van Gogh movie. "Starry Night" begins with Van Gogh drinking "potato potion"(vodka???) and being resurrected from the dead. Finding himself at a modern parade, he decides to get hit by a float. I kid you not. If you find that you crave a truly lousy, unintentionally funny movie... this is the one, a great movie to yuk it up with your friends about.

Just finished watching this film and i thought it was incredibly bad. I didn't see the beginning but the entire story seemed stupid. The characters were extremely annoying, the dubbing and blue screen was bad and just too obvious, and to top it all off, it was just annoying!! I really disliked the character Kathy, and the way the news had clips of the movie was silly too. I also thought that the detective really over egged her performance.

Still, i liked the really bad accents :)